Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Smt Meenu Arora

DRT19 Nov 2025TA/3426/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a housing loan debt of Rs.15,63,575 from the borrowers and guarantor, directing payment within 30 days and issuance of a recovery certificate after ex-parte proceedings against absent defendants.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants 1 to 3 to pay Rs.15,63,575 along with 10% pendentlite interest and costs within 30 days, failing which recovery from sale of mortgaged property and personal assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Meenu Arora — Consumer Protection | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 3426 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.3426 of 2022

¶5

Punjab National Bank Circle Sastra Centre, North Delhi Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt.Meenu Arora w/o Sanjeev Arora R/o G-2/2, Second Floor Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶9

Sh.Sanjeev Arora s/o Prakash Chand Arora R/o G-2/2, Second Floor Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶10

Sh. Yogesh Sharma s/o Ram Bhajan Sharma R/o H-1/141, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶11

Also at: Sh. Yogesh Sharma s/o Ram Bhajan Sharma B-4/103, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶12

Smt.Kalawati w/o Devender Singh R/o G-2/2, Second Floor Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh.S.K.Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

¶15

¶16

T.A. No. 3426 of 2022

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 28.03.2014 through Sh. Dharam Veer Nagar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant no.1 to 3 for recovery of Rs.15,63,575/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only) as on 27.03.2014 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.25% per annum with monthly rests from 27.03.2014 till the date of realization and costs.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 and 2 through loan application with ID Proofs, the applicant bank sanctioned housing loan for Rs.12,00,00 /- (Rupees Twelve lacs only) on 30.11.2007 @10.00% interest per annum subject to change to be repayable in 180 EMI of Rs.12,900/- for purchase of Entire Second Floor (without roof rights), built on Plot No.2, Block G, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi measuring 48 sa.meter from Sh.M.R.Khatri. The defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for the housing loan facility sanctioned by applicant bank.

¶20

In order to avail the housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 and 2 submitted Housing Loan Application and executed Agreement of Term Loan and Common. Agreement on 30.11.2007. The defendant no.3 agreements of continuing guarantee and severally liable to pay outstanding amount along with defendant no.1 and 2 to the applicant bank on 30.11.2007

¶21

¶22

¶23

T.A. No. 3426 of 2022

¶24

That in order to secure the housing loan facility, the defendant No.1 purchased the property and created equitable mortgage of property of Entire Second Floor (without roof rights), built on Plot No.2, Block G, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi by depositing original Sale Deed dated 01.12.2007 along with true copy of Conveyance Deed dated 20.06.2003 executed by DDA fvg. M.R.Khatri and Copy of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed on 29.12.2007.

¶25

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the housing loan facility, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to deposit the EMI regularly and regularize the account with the applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.09.2010 as per RBI guidelines and defendants deposited a sum of Rs.47,000/- on 31.03.2011 but failed to regularize the account, hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶26

Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 25.05.2011 was issued to the defendant no.1 and 3 but they failed to pay the dues. The applicant bank moved application under Section 14 for physical possession of the property before Ld. ACMM Delhi. After issuance of notice u/s 13(4), the defendant no.4 claiming to be purchaser of mortgaged property and filed SA No.678/2011 titled Devender Singh & Anr. Vs PNB (e-Oriental Bank of Commerce), which is pending for adjudication.

¶27

¶28

T.A. No. 3426 of 2022

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 10.02.2017, the defendant no.1 to 3 have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶30

The defendant no.4 filed written statement u/s 19 stating the documents annexed with the application by the bank cannot created any valid mortgage in favour of bank in respect of mortgaged property of defendant no.4 thus application deserved to be dismissed and her name be deleted from array of parties on account of no cause of action against the defendant no.4. However, vide order dated 18.03.2016, the defendant no.4 have been proceeded ex-parte for nonappearance and non-submission of evidence and affidavit of assets etc.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Common Agreement, Agreement of Term Loan, Agreements of Guarantee, Loan Application along with Title Documents of Property, Memorandum of Deposit of Title-Deed, Conveyance Deed, Notices, Publication in Newspaper, Copuy of Order dated 28.11.2011, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/12.

¶32

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the

¶33

¶34

T.A. No. 3426 of 2022

¶35

applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶36

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶37

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant no.1 to 3 to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.15,63,575/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only) as on 27.03.2014 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.00% per annum with monthly rests from 27.03.2014 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of Entire Second Floor (without roof rights), built on Plot No.2, Block G, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant no.1 to 3.

¶40

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶41

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 16.01.2026.

¶42

¶43

T.A. No. 3426 of 2022

¶44

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶45

E 5 G( _

¶46

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.11.2025

¶48

Punjab National Bank v. Smt Meenu Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Smt Meenu Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra